Surely a basic rule of life must be that no one has a greater interest in your welfare than you do.

BA: These are the cases highlighted by media promoting the feminist position that all sexual activity involving an intoxicated woman is sexual assault as she cannot give consent.

Similarly, if the man is drunk then he cannot be held responsible as he is guided by his basic instincts.

Then there is the case of "Dingo Ugly." That's when you would rather chew your arm off & escape rather than wake the person up. In a guy case he is grateful for getting one in, but with the woman if she has regrets & she complains.

Hard question to answer, this one.

I haven't read the whole article yet as something has just come up.

OK. Let me get this straight. If women get blind drunk, they only have themselves to blame for getting raped. If men get blind drunk, and rape (oh, sorry, have consensual blind drunk sex with) a blind drunk woman, they are committing little more than a traffic violation.

Yes, this may be an issue in maybe one in a thousand cases. But, as a parent of formerly teenage boys, and a veteran of holding teenage parties, Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore.

I've spent hours in emergency wards after my sons' teenage parties, with girls and their families, where their drinks were spiked with a substance that left them paralytic.

I've written letters to neighbours offering to recompense them for damage to their property for the actions of drunken young men who attended my sons' parties (mostly uninvited).

I've given statements to police regarding the glassing of a taxi-driver by drunken young (uninvited) men on the way to my sons' party.

I'm a parent who found a young man cowering in fear in our living room, too terrified to return to the party or even to leave, because other young thugs had threatened to beat him to a pulp.

I'm a parent who wanted my sons to enjoy the same kind of innocent parties I held as a teenager. But parties have moved on. They are now dominated by entitled male thugs, who enforce their dominance by spiking women's drinks (as a prelude to rape) and picking fights in packs against 'inferior' males.

Bettina Ardnt loves men - that's always been her trademark. That's her privilege. But she is hopelessly blind to the increasingly privileged destructiveness of male dominance.

You get drunk, tough titty.

Firstly, the whole interest of this article concerns university students. To that end I have no sympathy for rape victims. Victims will be very few and far between.
I maintain truth in the old saying “ get a haircut and get a real job” fits here!
University graduates in my experience, never seem to grow up!

Killarney: the best place for a bloke to bash an idiot is at a party. Nothing has ever changed!
You are the problem not the solution. That possibility doesn't seem to be sinking-in in your life!

And finally, I note the obvious exclusion of Julian Assange, noted as victim of the current worlds best rape stitch-up by two doubtful sluts ever!

if parents did their job in educating boys and girls a few morals then most of these 'rapes'would not occur. Of course 'safe'schools sexualising young kids and encouraging perversion will only add to the feminist narrative that all men are rapist and all women pure. Unfortunately the baby boomers who promoted 'free'sex are now witnessing the immorality on steroids. Still the feminist professors will write their garbage only contributing to the problem.

Let's be absolutely clear and completely unambiguous. Only informed age related consent makes sexual activity acceptable! NO IF, BUTS OR MAYBES!

Intoxication and or rohypnol, or the same in combination, make informed consent impossible in the first case and resistance absolutely impossible in the second!

Only completely calloused and totally indifferrent, Ass Holes of the first water, would argue otherwise! Yet go ballistic at the thought of SSM!

And to them I stand to attention, click my heels accompanied with a stiff arm salute, as I say, sieg hiel, sieg hiel, sieg hiel.
Alan B.

Wow Killarney you must live in a great neighbourhood, thugs everywhere. Strange I never had this problem with my children or my Grandchildren, nor any of their friends. I guess it's the type of people you or your children invite in the first place. Oh... you never mentioned Cat Fights. I guess all the girls invited to your parties are all little Princesses.

The way I hear it is that most fights at these kids parties & between boys happen over girls who are playing one against the other. It's primitive, I know, but that's the way it's always been. The girls load the guns & the boys shoot it out, then the boys cop all the blame. That learn that ploy at about 3 or 4 years old. Little sisters annoy their brothers until they get annoyed back then the little girls complain & the little boys get the whack from the parent.

Killarney: Bettina Ardnt loves men - that's always been her trademark.

And you don't we know that - that's always been your trademark.

I suppose you also subscribe to the Feminist Philosophy, "If a man is accused of Rape then he automatically guilty & should be jailed. If he didn't do it, tuff Titties, it makes up for the ones who got away with it." As told to me at a Feminist Meeting once.

"You get drunk, tough titty."

Not only titty!!

Killarney, Your first post rings of pure fiction!

We all know rape victims in our family: the subject is not to be scoffed at!

To be left in a state where your parents won't even come to the hospital because they were just so scared.... is unimaginable .... most accusations are laughed off even by medical professionals but some leave the scarring trace of inability to ever have a family and that means, possibly, never being able to recover- mentally or physically!

(...then there's the endless medication!)

Sadly there will always be men like Adrian Bailey, Les Murphy, who will always be a danger to women, but the important distinction is that they also murder their victims.

>Where's the logic in women not being in any way accountable if they get drunk and make stupid decisions exposing themselves to sexual harm?

The logic is feminist antipathy towards men. plan and simple.

Sure feminist antipathy yes the author blamed the feminists.... but in the end if a woman is gang raped and not killed... She spends the next 20 years asking ,"... Why didn't they kill me?..." and drinking a 5 dollar bottle of metho twice a week to come down from the drugs her psychiatrist gives and she obviously pops like smarties.

There are worse fates than death...

Women simply have to realise their dads loves them and stupid girls who promote slutty behaviour are simply stupid women who don't love their dads!

I have to support Killarney on this issue: no matter how drunk a girl might get, if she has not consented to sex, then that is at least sexual assault, if not rape. Consent is the criterion, conscious, ideally sober consent. Any genuine bloke would know that, and not push his chances.

Indirectly, this relates to the reasons for heterosexual marriage: surely we all know that, in a heterosexual relationship, women are more likely to cop the negative consequences: she is the one who can get pregnant, he is the one who can shoot through; she is the one who takes the risks involved in such a relationship, which is why marriage is more crucial for a woman, certainly a young girl, than it may be for a bloke: it gives her some assurance, admittedly pretty flimsy, that in the event of her committing herself to the point of getting pregnant, she has entered into a legal relationship, one which ever so slightly protects her, that she has something in law which protects her - yes, however flimsy.

No such inequality enters into a homosexual relationship: two blokes can't make each other pregnant, and neither can two women.

So as a sort of conservative leftist, I'd be happy to see the definition of marriage wound back to only give that sort of legal protection to women. Men and homosexuals don't have that nagging problem, that doubt: in that sense, they are as free to piss off as men are. People want to enter relationships, but only a male and female do so with the possibility that the woman, not the man, could be lumbered with the possibility of pregnancy. There's hardly any need for marriage otherwise.

Joe

>.... but in the end if a woman is gang raped and not killed... She spends the next 20 years asking ,"... Why didn't they kill me?..." and drinking a 5 dollar bottle of metho twice a week to come down from the drugs her psychiatrist gives and she obviously pops like smarties.

>Posted by mememememememe, Friday, 8 September 2017 3:34:27 AM

MEMEMEMEME, did read the article?

As far as I recall, there was no mention of gang rape.

The issue is about two people becoming intoxicated and having sex and consent.

Gang rape is a totally different kettle of fish.

Joe:

Getting pregnant is not the same thing as being a parent. Sure, only women can get pregnant but the decision to be a parent can be equally accepted or rejected by both parties. Women can also ‘shoot through’ and leave the parenting to the man. The legal relationship that needs protecting is the relationship between the child and the parents. There does not need to be a marriage for this protection to be guaranteed by the state if necessary.

//OK. Let me get this straight. If women get blind drunk, they only have themselves to blame for getting raped.//

If sex with drunk woman is rape because drunk women cannot give consent, how is that men are able to give consent to sex when they're drunk? Are they just the superior sex, and thus better able to retain their faculties when three sheets to the wind? Because that sounds rather sexist to me, nor is it supported by anecdotal observation.

If women can do everything men can do, and men can consent to sex when drunk, then it follows that women can too. If they can't, that implies that men can't either.

//If men get blind drunk, and... have consensual blind drunk sex ... they are committing little more than a traffic violation.//

Committing some sort of crime? So now we're going to start victim blaming? Classy, Killa.

They can't have consensual sex when they're blind drunk, remember? All those poor bastards who've been raped, and all you can do is take the piss? Real classy.

//I've spent hours in emergency wards after my sons' teenage parties, with girls and their families, where their drinks were spiked with a substance that left them paralytic.//

Yeah, that substance would have been ethanol... and it's a good bet that many of those cases would have involved 'self-spiking'. Young women are not famous for their ability to hold their liqour well, and the fizzy, sugary, pre-mixed spirits that they favour go to my head awfully quickly. And I'm an experienced drunk.

But sod Occam's razor: clearly it's got naught to with youthful inexperience when it comes to hard liquor, and aught to do with the marauding packs of rapists lurking on every street corner. And even if it isn't actual rapists, I'm sure there's some way we can blame the patriarchy for people poisoning themselves.

If a person drinks and drives and is caught, they are held responsible for their actions, regardless of gender.

Maybe they should invent a new law and make it illegal for both genders to have sex whilst intoxicated.

Hi Phanto,

That happens often, does it ? 50/50 ?

What, the man takes over the pregnancy 50 % of the time, then when 50 % of women shoot through, the remaining 50 % of men faithfully look after the children ?

Or would it be more like 100 % of pregnancies are borne by the women, and 90 % of the cases of one partner absconding involve the bloke, leaving the caring to the women ?

So what's your point ?

Joe

It seems that you were making it an argument in favour of marriage. I am saying that it happens to men also so 'protecting' women is a sexist attitude and in any case you do not have to be married to be protected.

I think the lesson should be to not get drunk, instead of reading between the lines of concent or blame with sex or rape.

Some people go out to have a drink with the specific intention to have sex later. Applies to both men and women. To step away from that prostution by drink sitution, might require to just not drink. Or to only have a two drink maximum. If that amount is too much of a tease then the answer is simple. STAY SOBER AND DON'T DRINK.

In my younger days I was living on my yacht at a Sydney marina, but had too much gear. I took a bedroom & the garage in a large share house. At that time there were 8 people there.

Two of the ladies regularly went to the pub on Friday or Saturday night with the expressed intention to pick up a bloke, or vice versa. If their level of drunk when they missed out & came home alone is any indication, they would have qualified as beyond the ability to make a rational decision when picked up, if they had not planned to get laid before starting.

The answer, of course, is to not be allowed to talk to women and remain sober whilst doing so. No violence, either, btw!

Too many responses to address individually. However ...

jayb

'Wow Killarney you must live in a great neighbourhood, thugs everywhere.'

The thugs in question were not from the neighbourhood. In fact, they came from one of Brisbane's top private schools. One of the young men who played in my sons' band went to that school and, unfortunately and without my sons' consent, put out an open invitation.

Those thugs will no doubt go on to become high-income professionals, corporate CEOs, top public servants and probably politicians.

'Killarney: Bettina Ardnt loves men - that's always been her trademark./And you don't we know that - that's always been your trademark.'

I've followed BA's career since the days she wrote for Forum. She has a long litany of defending and promoting men's howling submission to their hormonal dictates and of counselling young women to sympathise with and accommodate men's voracious sexual appetites. As someone who believes this predatory male/submissive female trope is a load of rubbish, suffice to say that I hold BA in a notch below contempt.

Human nature is a strange wee beastie. Understanding how some women can be fooled by men promising fidelity or to protect them with their lives, just to win their trust/get into their pants, is almost as difficult a task, as conception while standing in a hammock!

If you want to go out to have fun/get plastered, you need to follow a few simple rules. Make sure you go with a friend, and have a fully charged phone and taxi fare.

Never drink from a glass brought to the table by a relative stranger, but rather ask for a bottle/can of your favorite tipple, and a clean glass.

Take both with you to your comfort break(s)! Well if either is sus? You can jettison the contents in an appropriate receptacle, without creating offense and don't forget to flush!

Because having a drink spiked takes seconds and stuff like rohypnol can make someone look like a two/one pot screamer, and paralytically drunk/fair game!

If you believe that casual sex is acceptable and you as a grown adult have a right to choose who you sleep with or sleep around?

Then if it's not on, it's not on! Carry a couple of emergency condoms in your purse, even if that makes you a slut in some judgemental eyes.

And if that's so, then those eyes belong to the sort of assholes who believe an intoxicated woman is fair game, as opposed to someone a fair dinkum friend would protect, even from herself. Almost as if she were, your very own kid sister or daughter!

And blokes, if you need "relief"? Try lady palmer and her five daughters, it's immeasurably safer! Err in haste, repent at leisure! Often every which way! STD's, an unwanted tin lid, and much worse!

I mean, you can't judge a book by the brightly colored glossy hard cover and you don't know where it's been. Or if it's a well planned, tender trap?

It might sound quaint and old fashioned, but makes even more sense today! If you want to keep it? Put a ring on it!
Alan B.

Thanks, Killarney; thanks, Alan.

The ever-present threat of being lumped, broke, with those 'tin lids' after making a commitment to some bloke, partly-sight-unseen, might make heterosexual marriage just that little bit more attractive for women, just a small insurance that the bloke won't piss off - not that it would stop any bloke if he was determined.

We've forgotten how much more vulnerable women used to be, without reliable contraception or the right to abortion AND no single-mother's benefit, a sort of Trifecta of discriminatory rules, and bad luck, for women. Yes, this has all changed since the 1960s. Which, to me, means that there is even less need for bourgeois marriage of any sort, especially for anybody who purports to be 'Left' and thereby devalues marriage per se. Come to think of it, half of my siblings and siblings-in-law are, or have been, in de facto relationships, they haven't bothered getting married at all. So it has even less purpose than it did in the 1960s.

So marriage isn't even the small insurance that it used to be for women. Except for those wanting church weddings, mainly for family tradition, there is little need to get married at all. So perhaps the notion of State-sponsored civil unions can safely be abandoned as an out-dated relic, leaving the churches to carry out weddings, i.e. traditional marriage, that bourgeois institution, alone, according to their quaint customs.

Joe

Killarney, "The thugs in question were not from the neighbourhood. In fact, they came from one of Brisbane's top private schools"

If you want to really raise the stakes it is very easy to come up with examples of youthful female bullies who could slice and dice those male brutes (and they would already have done a real job on the girls around them).

The girls and the mothers who model female thuggery to them will always win. Because girls, women bullies, act out consistently, while the males take advantage as it presents, opportunistic. Of course they are some males whose 'feminine side' is seemingly well developed. I reckon most of them found careers in law and politics. LO

Joe (Loudmouth),

Apologies, our posts crossed. However in a quick response to yours I imagine we are already living in a post-marriage Australia. Yes, along with destruction of 'traditional'(sic) family that is what the feminists were always looking for as a goal and yes, they won.

Now women have to reckon up the tab to see if it was all worth it. But at the same time they should know that there is no going back where the 'baby has been tossed out with the bath water' and yes, the experiment continues and is even ramped up where ordinary women and men allow the political elite their head. democracy, more to the point freedom of speech, needs constant vigilance and defending by everyone.

It is interesting for instance that feminists now war on the femininity of the breast while pretending to help women.

'Free the nipple' and the breast, 'equality' with men mantra, will culminate in a large reduction in the areas of the body that women can hold private. Now, I don't mind and say 'whatever'. But if my own daughter asks I'd be saying keep the mystique, the privacy, respect and the safety. Otherwise soon there will be men on public transport who know they can have a feel with impunity. And of course it could be their cultural inheritance to boot, so here comes the mob! Try getting that genie back into the bottle.

Sexual consent relies on the group, national, understanding and consensus on morality. Is that even possible in 'Progressive', multiculturalist Australia?

Hi Leoj,

Let's be honest - if a bloke can get it up, he's sober enough to know the difference between a drunken woman/girl and a sober one, and the consequences of trying to have his way with someone who isn't really able to say yes or no.

Clearly, from many of the above comments, we're all a lot more aware of each others' rights now than fifty years ago. Relationships are better understood, rights are (arguably?) better protected, safeguards like marriage are less salient, and more likely for sentimental value than added insurance for the woman.

Obviously, even if State instrumentalities eventually scrap the notion of 'civil unions', the churches would still be able to celebrate marriages as they perceive them separate from the State, much like Mass, and thereby maintain the hard-fought separation of Church and State.

So, how do you reckon I'll be voting in the plebiscite ?

Joe

Joe:

"Relationships are better understood, rights are (arguably?) better protected, safeguards like marriage are less salient, and more likely for sentimental value than added insurance for the woman."

Which shows what a complete and utter waste of time and money the whole SSM push has been. Governments pouring millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain to satisfy some immature sentiment. If it is sentiment for one then it is sentiment for all regardless of your 'sexuality'.

Well, maybe not, Phanto: but it does indicate what a colossal waste of time, effort and money it has been for anybody to waste their time trying to extend the bourgeois institution of marriage beyond its natural limits. Leave it to the churches to marry people if they want.

Joe

Leoj

Yes, I did ‘raise the stakes’, but all’s fair on online forums, as long as you stay within the guidelines. I was pointing out that that a lot of thuggery, sexual or otherwise, is based on social hierarchies. Men are conditioned to see women as below them at all hierarchic levels. So predatory sexuality is built into the dominance structure.

Alan B

All your ‘prepare yourself’ guidelines on how not to get raped when enjoying a night on the town are helpful, but only highlight how women spend their entire lives in fear of rape – at any time or place the rapist so chooses. In fact, women spend their lives doing whatever they can to avoid rape, but the legal and public opinion sectors still assume that if a woman is raped, then she either ‘asked for it’ by dressing wrongly or putting herself in harm’s way, or didn’t do enough to stop it.

Joe

‘We've forgotten how much more vulnerable women used to be, without reliable contraception or the right to abortion AND no single-mother's benefit, a sort of Trifecta of discriminatory rules, and bad luck, for women. ‘

Add to that, few opportunities for them to support themselves unless they married AND the enormous social stigma and expense of divorce.

To put on my other hat, that of amateur historian, the further you go back in history, the more liberal were marriage laws and customs. In Ireland, where I live, the pre-British laws were very relaxed about divorce and sexual activity, and allowed married women the right to own their own money and property. Women also kept their own names after marriage. As these cultures were absorbed into more dominant social systems, usually by military force and/or Christian zealotry, women’s rights plummeted.

While many choose to see the breakdown of marriage in the West as a symptom of social and moral breakdown, I prefer to see it as an adjustment mechanism – getting back to a time when sexual relationships and procreation were viewed in a much more sensible light.

Killarney...

*…Men are conditioned to see women as below them at all hierarchic levels. So predatory sexuality is built into the dominance structure…*

A) When finished pulling the spokes out of the wheel where male dominance is innate in the kingdom of “ man”, do you next then intend also to change the nature of male dominance in the animal kingdom too?

*…In fact, women spend their lives doing whatever they can to avoid rape, but the legal and public opinion sectors still assume that if a woman is raped, then she either ‘asked for it’ by dressing wrongly or putting herself in harm’s way, or didn’t do enough to stop…*

A) Women have an innate recognition of their vulnerability; to ignore that is to be a fool

*…I prefer to see it (moral decay in society), as an adjustment mechanism – getting back to a time when sexual relationships and procreation were viewed in a much more sensible light…*

A) Well you are not adjusting too well to it (the moral decay) by all accounts, with your reaction to gate-crashers at your sons party's.

It's seems to my way of thinking you lack a basic view of reality. Probably why the local plods try to ignore your plight; you actually are the problem!

Killarney...

*…Men are conditioned to see women as below them at all hierarchic levels. So predatory sexuality is built into the dominance structure…*

I think this statement really shows the level of contempt that you hold against men.

There is not a single male I know of who sees women as being below them, Killarney. Possibly you see women as being superior to men, I have even had some women say this to my face.

Sadly in this world of equality if men don't take the risk of trying to initiate sex, nothing happens.

Sex whilst intoxicated?

For me that is not really an enjoyable experience.

Killarney:

“Men are conditioned to see women as below them at all hierarchic levels.”

And women are conditioned to accept this state of affairs primarily by their mothers. It is not men who are the ‘enemy’ but other women.

Phanto,

And what would happen to those mothers if they didn't ? Look at some of the prehistoric societies and how they view women: honour killings, easy divorce for men only, women's rights being a fraction of men's, women required to cover up so as not to excite men, girls can be mutilated, etc. In traditional Aboriginal societies, women were frequently killed for stepping out of line, or being suspected of doing so.

So what effects might all that have on women ? i.e. a 'culture' of inequality ? How would any woman get by, day to day, except by going along with all that ? And you've surely heard of the Stockholm Syndrome ? What might that have if it was life-long, generation after generation ?

Just think for once.

Joe

Joe,

That's true but Killarney was not talking about pre-historic societies. She was talking about modern western society where women have as much power as men and still they play the victim card.

Mothers should be teaching their daughters that there is no reason why they cannot have the same things as men including power and influence where it is necessary.

Sometimes it is easier to blame others than to take control of the situation.

Phanto,

No matter how much power women might have in western societies compared to backward societies, they are still the ones who take most of the risks, often unknowingly if they are young and virginal.

Men don't get pregnant, and I don't see gays rushing to have some new procedure done in order to do so. Yes, the situation has changed since 1971, before which young mothers had to give up their babies unless they had families to financially support therm for years. But it's still the women who have to interrupt their careers or study to look after babies, not men.

So "equality" is a bit more complicated for women, even now :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe:

Women do not have to have babies. They now have a choice and they need to weigh up all the pros and cons of their choices just like men do. Men have to decide how much commitment they will make towards their career versus other options. Women have to also make that choice.

No one is forcing any individual woman to have a child. They are under no obligations. If women 'en masse' choose not to have children then that is their right and men just have to live with that.

Phanto,

Of course they don't, on the whole. But the odd, accidental pregnancy probably raises all sorts of conflicting thoughts in women's minds: should they have the baby now that it's a possibility, should they abort, if they have it how will they survive financially or will mum and dad be pissed off but supportive, at least for a time ? What impact will it have on my career, or study ? Will i ever see that bloke again, now that I'm in the club ? God, am I a slut or what ?

Blokes have none of those concerns: in and out, wow, that was fun, well see you around. Hey, guys, I had this fantastic root last night, a real raver, would you like her number ? Yuk yuk.

So, Phanto, would you rather be a woman ?

Joe

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

You're quite right Joe when you say, even in our enlightened society it's women who take all the risks.

I couldn't care less what Ms ARNDT says; women do need to understand, whenever they're in public, it represents a risk. Whether or not it's a slight risk or a more profound risk, nevertheless it's still a risk. It's women themselves who should learn to diminish that risk as nobody else can do it for them.

As discussed on this Forum a year or two back, we (police) ran a series of seminars for women who had experienced sexual assault; or had escaped such an assault; or were under some severe risk through lifestyle, hours worked, or something else altogether quite irregular in their livestyles. It was titled 'Rick Management for Women', and it was funded as a Public Service.

It dealt with in part: -

. Responsible consumption of Alcohol & Drugs; in an unfamiliar environment;
. Being mindful of one's attire; (This topic always irritates and exasperates many women!)
. Prudent use of elevators;
. When alone at a social gathering, having a definite exit strategy and a means to get home;
. How to safely use a public toilet & approaching their parked M/V - alone and at night;
. Sobriety, with alcohol and/or drugs is 'paramount' despite how much you trust your friend;
. Don't fear the night - Use the night to your advantage.
.There were several other topics discussed.

*The most important being - **Irrespective of how important it is for all of us males to recognise and accept, both culturally and in law; women's rights in our civilised, cultured and sophisticated times of 2017 can and still are being transgressed and violated. To an extent a woman can be horrifically defiled to a point she'll never recover. So it befalls all women to be mindful and accept; there is still a risk from predatory males who usually in times of darkness, ooze up from the fetid sewers of our cities, and be the monsters they've become.

Joe:

"Blokes have none of those concerns"

Maybe they don't have these particular concerns but that does not mean their life is necessarily a bed of roses. Men have different concerns. Why do so many men commit suicide if life is so easy for them?

Women have concerns that are particular to their physiology and men have other concerns that are not necessarily related to their reproductive capacity. Concerns are concerns and problems are problems no matter what the origin of those things are.

I don't think it is true to say that women in general have more problems than men - they just have different ones.

WollyB, diver dan

Yes, of course. Whatever. Politically inclined women's sense of gender and social equality begins and ends with how they personally feel about men. Men are at the centre of every woman's universe. Translate: men are superior to women, and wise women realise what side their bread is buttered on; feminists don't. Feminists have all these silly notions that women create their own destiny, apart from men, but can still have meaningful relationships with men as more whole human beings. Weird. Sick.

You have to feel passionate about something in order to hate it. So, it's a big comfort to men to assume that women who have a sense of social and gender equality must hate them. Men are so important after all.

Joe

'In traditional Aboriginal societies, women were frequently killed for stepping out of line, or being suspected of doing so.'

I'm not sure where you get this from. It may be true. But consider ... these observations were often made by social scientists and anthropologists who were witnessing a society under extreme distress, facing annihilation and traditional social breakdown. When societies come under distress, domestic violence, social violence, mental illness, alcoholism and suicide are common. The Romans made similar observations about the Celtic and Germanic societies they conquered.

I'm no expert on traditional Aboriginal society, but what I've learned is that women's sacred sites, as witnessed by cave paintings at Carnarvon (QLD) and other places show that they were focused on women's genitalia, with hundreds of images that look like an upside-down exclamation mark (draw your own conclusions). It doesn't take much to assume that these women's sacred rites were about performing abortions, sharing sexual knowledge and supporting women in their pregnancies and childbirth.

Also, cave paintings of thousands of hands have been universally documented as symbols of the family - two parents and three children (two to replace the parents and one spare). Traditional Aboriginal society was very strict about population control - no economic growth nonsense for them. Abortion was an economic necessity, not a moral choice.

phanto

You're confusing gender politics with gender happiness. Most people accommodate their lives to the systems under which they live - and many manage to find happiness. But you will always have these people who want to challenge and change things. History is full of these people and they have made all the difference.

Hi Killarney,

No, such power imbalances were usual pre-colonisation and post-, even today in more remote 'communities', away from any surveillance. In the early days in South Australia, if an Aboriginal man beat his wife to death, he was advised what the law was - since he (and she too) were British subjects, entitled to the protection of the law - and given a couple of years hard labour.

So these days, in large 'communities', where there may (or may not) be a police presence, men are just a little more circumspect about beating their wives or girlfriends to death.

But every year in the Northern Territory, almost all murders of Aboriginal women were committed by Aboriginal men. I'm not suggesting that this is unique to Australian Aboriginal society - nothing much is unique about Aboriginal society - since gross inequality is common to all pre-modern or traditional societies I can think of.

Probably it's exacerbated in parts of Australia where patriarchy still rules 100 %, and where women have to leave their own country for life in order to marry, effectively as migrant brides for life, given that patriarchal societies also tend to be virilocal, i.e. where a married couple lives in the husband's country, since after all the children will belong to the husband.

Down around the Murray Lakes, traditional society was less patriarchal, and groups were far closer to each other, so it was as common for men to live in their wives' country as much as vice versa, or even their wives' mothers' or husbands' mothers' country. But even there, from the ample written records (see www.firstsources.info, Taplin and Pt McLeay Page), there are many instances of male brutality towards women, with nothing to do with colonialism etc. And, of course, male brutality to other men, even sons towards fathers. After all, traditional societies are violent societies - unless my reading of Irish and Scottish history has been skewed ?

Best wishes,

Joe

Killarney:

"You're confusing gender politics with gender happiness. Most people accommodate their lives to the systems under which they live - and many manage to find happiness."

Accommodation is not happiness. Either they have genuine issues or they do not. Both men and women have had problems through history and neither gender has had a monopoly on that. Each gender should act to overcome their own problems. Whether they have more or less problems than the opposite gender is immaterial.

Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 7:25:28 AM

One of the problems in reviewing history, is that history is being judged by today's standards and norms.

The Second problem is interpreting what was recorded, as that is the only record, so a lot of information that could have been of importance has not been recorded, possibly because it was not deemed to be of interest or importance.

Wolly,

So ........ we can't ever know anything from the past, because it may not have been fully or accurately recorded ? And in any case, we would interpret the scraps that we can find out from our own modern perspective now, today ? So we wring our hands in impotence and make no judgements at all about history ?

Well, I'm not so sure. There was a hell of a lot written about, and in, the past, first-hand accounts of Aboriginal life, so we can cross-check or triangulate, different accounts. They tend to be fairly consistent in their observations of gender relations, from one side of Australia to the other.

And one common thread, from William Buckley's accounts around Geelong over thirty years before 'settlement', through all of the anthropologists' and missionaries' and travellers' accounts, to the present situations, observed by a multitude of journalists, is the common resort to violence in 'communities'.

The bottom line was that women in traditional Aboriginal society - as in every other 'traditional' society - couldn't say 'no'. In one society down this way, such a women would be systematically pack-raped all night, to sort of teach the little lady a lesson. Mind you, the blokes did that also if a woman was suspected of being a bit loose - nothing like a bit of mass-violent-sex to teach her a lesson - or otherwise if her partner suspected that she may be thinking of playing around. Then, of course, he would get stuck into the suspected object of her desires. Or that bloke's relations, especially his sisters.

Joe